Cal Club Autocross Forums

Will Kalman wrote:

Bob Pl wrote:.... the SEB is "picking winners and losers" with rules. I don't think it's the point of the SEB to "dumb down" or try and "equalize" different design cars.

Consider that cars that benefit too much could be re-classed up or cars that become uncompetitive can be re-classed down. I don't think the SEB is trying to equalize competition but trying to help severely camber-challenged cars from burning up tires at an alarming rate and also to make them more reasonably fun to be driven. Many new cars are so tuned for understeer "safety" that they are literally not worth autocrossing in stock form - at all, ever. In Curt's HS Civic, we burned down a set of Hoosiers in 22 runs. $800 worth of tires... do the math and you'd have to be *insane* to autocross (we went back to Kumhos which lasted MUCH longer but were ultimately slower).

So you are saying, make a rule based on the design difference of suspensions, that favors one design over the other,

then

re-class the cars that get the short end of that rule.

How about just reclass the cars that are camber limited & save adding another rule to the book?

People make choices, if they choose to buy and autox a camber challenged car, why is it the job of the SEB to "equal it out" for them?

So far as burning up Hoosiers in 20 runs, come you, you guys have been around long enough to know that was going to happen. I burn up a couple of sets of the big Hoosiers a year with a car that can get plenty of camber. When that gets to be a problem for me I'll take up surfing or fishing. How much is bait?

Bob Pl wrote:

Will Kalman wrote:

Bob Pl wrote:.... the SEB is "picking winners and losers" with rules. I don't think it's the point of the SEB to "dumb down" or try and "equalize" different design cars.

Consider that cars that benefit too much could be re-classed up or cars that become uncompetitive can be re-classed down. I don't think the SEB is trying to equalize competition but trying to help severely camber-challenged cars from burning up tires at an alarming rate and also to make them more reasonably fun to be driven. Many new cars are so tuned for understeer "safety" that they are literally not worth autocrossing in stock form - at all, ever. In Curt's HS Civic, we burned down a set of Hoosiers in 22 runs. $800 worth of tires... do the math and you'd have to be *insane* to autocross (we went back to Kumhos which lasted MUCH longer but were ultimately slower).

So you are saying, make a rule based on the design difference of suspensions, that favors one design over the other,

then

re-class the cars that get the short end of that rule.

How about just reclass the cars that are camber limited & save adding another rule to the book?

People make choices, if they choose to buy and autox a camber challenged car, why is it the job of the SEB to "equal it out" for them?

So far as burning up Hoosiers in 20 runs, come you, you guys have been around long enough to know that was going to happen. I burn up a couple of sets of the big Hoosiers a year with a car that can get plenty of camber. When that gets to be a problem for me I'll take up surfing or fishing. How much is bait?

When I first Ran DS on R;s i Had no Clue that they wear so fast , and no one was kind enough to to tell me. The waste of perfectly good tire in 20 runs is just asinine . My Common sense won't allow it.

Bob Pl wrote:So you are saying, make a rule based on the design difference of suspensions, that favors one design over the other,

then

re-class the cars that get the short end of that rule.

How about just reclass the cars that are camber limited & save adding another rule to the book?

People make choices, if they choose to buy and autox a camber challenged car, why is it the job of the SEB to "equal it out" for them?

So far as burning up Hoosiers in 20 runs, come you, you guys have been around long enough to know that was going to happen. I burn up a couple of sets of the big Hoosiers a year with a car that can get plenty of camber. When that gets to be a problem for me I'll take up surfing or fishing. How much is bait?

Rather than continuing to argue with us on a subject where neither side's opinion is going to change, it might be a more productive idea to write a letter to the SEB.

Done.

Just switching the class to street tires alone would be a step forward in terms of tire performance usability. With street tires you can still flip them on the rim and get great performance before they cord. Flipping R-Comps seems to be a waste of time/money IMO with the customers I see. They just want to burn up the expensive rubber that is already showing cord or have heatcycled out aleady. With the SK1/SK2 (RTR/RTA/RTF) customers I am getting here at C2 we usually flip them at the 60-75 run mark and they get another 60-75 runs before tossing them for new ones - Both Strut and SLA suspension cars. I think strut plates are a bad way to go for stock because its a longer process to get these made than people think and in most cases will be custom.

Some cars require hacking up the strut tops to allow plates to work. Only a select few companies make strut plates for OEM strut setups and usually takes a couple years before they come out. Most of these plates are designed exclusively for coilover setups and so people will need to have custom machining/fabrication to convert the plates to work with OEM shafts and get them at the right overall length of the strut.

Jonathan Lugod wrote:Just switching the class to street tires alone would be a step forward in terms of tire performance usability. With street tires you can still flip them on the rim and get great performance before they cord. Flipping R-Comps seems to be a waste of time/money IMO with the customers I see. They just want to burn up the expensive rubber that is already showing cord or have heatcycled out aleady. With the SK1/SK2 (RTR/RTA/RTF) customers I am getting here at C2 we usually flip them at the 60-75 run mark and they get another 60-75 runs before tossing them for new ones - Both Strut and SLA suspension cars. I think strut plates are a bad way to go for stock because its a longer process to get these made than people think and in most cases will be custom.

Some cars require hacking up the strut tops to allow plates to work. Only a select few companies make strut plates for OEM strut setups and usually takes a couple years before they come out. Most of these plates are designed exclusively for coilover setups and so people will need to have custom machining/fabrication to convert the plates to work with OEM shafts and get them at the right overall length of the strut.

Hmm a quick search found plates that work with the oem spring are available , and not just for my car , i ran the other strut cars and found some also.
Not debating your knowledge Jon, just saying, they are out there.
Including the new BRZ/FRS.

Michael Wood wrote:First, I should mention that I'm personally interested in what you SoCal folks are thinking about this proposal, both due to the good contingent of stock class drivers and also from the history with SK.

The primary driver for the proposed camber allowances is to allow McStrut cars more static camber and promote the "fun factor" of a greater portion of cars being produced today...which includes more reasonable tire wear. SLA cars have less need, due to typical camber curves, and the idea of modifying control arms most seem to feel is going too far with modifications. There really isn't an easy way to affect significant static camber gain on an SLA car.

On exhausts, the thinking is pretty simple: Keep it legal (turn downs under the car are illegal in this state and most every other) and keep it safe (avoid CO recirculation into the cockpit) to allow true "arrive and drive" street cars not being penalized. If competitors no longer have to swap tires when they get to the event, it seems silly to "have" to change exhaust systems, I guess. Interestingly, this proposal actually was initially submitted to the STAC. I don't think it works for ST*, as a takeback, but feel it is right for the intended Street class.

You're worried about legality, yet you'll let people electronically disable their traction/DSC control and drive on the street (and wait until their insurace company gets a hold of THAT after an incident, regardless of who is at fault...)

No (competitive) ST car is street legal to begin with, (no emissions compliance, side airbag removal, etc.) so let's not even bring up that class. The "Street Prepared on Street Tires" can of worms has already been opened so there's no going back now. }:)

With the proposed rule, many folks will now have to reach around a hot tailpipe to adjust their shocks from street to track settings creating a burn risk where there previously wasn't one. I get the idea of wanting the outlet out from under the car, so how about simply saying "exhaust must exit from under the bodywork" and leave it at that?


As for camber allowances, I agree with Sebastian: the rule should apply to all cars, or nobody at all. Crash bolts for everyone!

Jonathan Lugod wrote:Just switching the class to street tires alone would be a step forward in terms of tire performance usability. With street tires you can still flip them on the rim and get great performance before they cord. Flipping R-Comps seems to be a waste of time/money IMO with the customers I see. They just want to burn up the expensive rubber that is already showing cord or have heatcycled out aleady. With the SK1/SK2 (RTR/RTA/RTF) customers I am getting here at C2 we usually flip them at the 60-75 run mark and they get another 60-75 runs before tossing them for new ones - Both Strut and SLA suspension cars. I think strut plates are a bad way to go for stock because its a longer process to get these made than people think and in most cases will be custom.

Some cars require hacking up the strut tops to allow plates to work. Only a select few companies make strut plates for OEM strut setups and usually takes a couple years before they come out. Most of these plates are designed exclusively for coilover setups and so people will need to have custom machining/fabrication to convert the plates to work with OEM shafts and get them at the right overall length of the strut.

We'll be designing and making custom camber/caster plates. Hopefully the stack-up ht can be adjusted with spacers form most applications.

Rick

Of course the added camber will effect tire life if driven on the street ... which is part of what this is about, right ... not trailering "stock" cars.

What we did in our STX/STU/WRX/STI's is had Camber/Caster plates that gave us our track setting of maxed out camber and caster (slot was at a 45 degree angle, going in and back) ... and then a marked off setting with zero Toe. Changing camber had a huge influence on Toe on those Suby's! It was easy at the event to go from Zero (or even a bit of Toe-In) toe to 1/4 inch toe out with the corresponding increase in camber and caster. The added caster helping to preserve camber while turning.

Mako


Quit giving away TEAM BLEW SECRETS.

Mako Koiwai wrote:Of course the added camber will effect tire life if driven on the street ... which is part of what this is about, right ... not trailering "stock" cars.

What we did in our STX/STU/WRX/STI's is had Camber/Caster plates that gave us our track setting of maxed out camber and caster (slot was at a 45 degree angle, going in and back) ... and then a marked off setting with zero Toe. Changing camber had a huge influence on Toe on those Suby's! It was easy at the event to go from Zero (or even a bit of Toe-In) toe to 1/4 inch toe out with the corresponding increase in camber and caster. The added caster helping to preserve camber while turning.

That works if the steering tie rods are in front of the wheels. It the tie rods are behind the wheels, increasing neg camber adds toe-in.
Probably for most, it's easier to add neg camber and set the toe to zero for tire wear.

Richard Jung wrote: it's easier to add neg camber and set the toe to zero for tire wear.

Agreed that toe is the biggest variable in tire wear. I've run insane camber numbers (in most people's opinion) and never suffered adverse tire wear. I hear results may have been different back in the bias ply days.

Ignoring the suspension geometry advantage of SLA cars and the mechanical grip of a 200TW street vs an A6 for a moment...

Can anyone propose a reasonable method to gain static camber on an SLA car?

offset bushings or eccentric bolts would be reasonable, heat and beat the upper or a replacement upper would also fit the bill but most would not consider that reasonable.

Offset bushings are not appropriate for a "stockish" class.

Personally, I would allow eccentric (crash) bolts only. Camber plates are down that same slippery slope next to the offset bushings.

As someone who's BMW is currently maxed out at -1.125deg of camber I'm pumped for camber plates. I wreck the outside shoulder as my car rolls all over it during sweepers. Unfortunately I agree, that it will just be a couple events until people are showing up with custom plates to get some absurd amount of negative camber.

Matt Ales wrote:As someone who's BMW is currently maxed out at -1.125deg of camber I'm pumped for camber plates. I wreck the outside shoulder as my car rolls all over it during sweepers. Unfortunately I agree, that it will just be a couple events until people are showing up with custom plates to get some absurd amount of negative camber.

If some cars benefit greatly from camber plates and the car's performance (lap times) improves, what prevents the cars from being re classed? The nice thing about camber plates is, you can set them for street use and move them to your race setting, then back for the drive home. If you can get 4 degrees of camber (and that works for you ) I say great! Some cars will go faster (Like most German cars) and some will not. Classing may change for cars that see great benefits.

Lower offset adjustment is more tricky.

What's an absurd amount of camber?

Camber plate maxed out ... before instead going with max Camber AND Caster





Camber AND Caster, camber plate slot 45 degree in and back ... a better solution on a WRX

Doug Teulie wrote: If some cars benefit greatly from camber plates and the car's performance (lap times) improves, what prevents the cars from being re classed?

The SAC .

Matt Ales wrote:As someone who's BMW is currently maxed out at -1.125deg of camber...

Then you're only .1 degree behind the NB Miata I ran last year.

This is a perfect example of why the rule needs to be open to all cars.

Steve Lepper wrote:

Matt Ales wrote:As someone who's BMW is currently maxed out at -1.125deg of camber...

Then you're only .1 degree behind the NB Miata I ran last year.

This is a perfect example of why the rule needs to be open to all cars.

Does the Mazda gain negative,or positive camber under load?
In the front?

Michael Wood wrote:Ignoring the suspension geometry advantage of SLA cars and the mechanical grip of a 200TW street vs an A6 for a moment...

Can anyone propose a reasonable method to gain static camber on an SLA car?

the SLA equivalent of camber plates are replacement adjustable upper control arms.

Marshall Grice wrote:

Michael Wood wrote:Ignoring the suspension geometry advantage of SLA cars and the mechanical grip of a 200TW street vs an A6 for a moment...

Can anyone propose a reasonable method to gain static camber on an SLA car?

the SLA equivalent of camber plates are replacement adjustable upper control arms.

Yep, or (as was pointed out) offset control arm bushings can give gains. But, both are seen as not reasonable, it seems. In one case, you're replacing a significant component of the oem design (control arm). In the other, you are required to either hire a shop or have on hand specialized tools to do bushings. Both end up feeling pretty "prepared" and not consistent with an entry level, minimum prep class.

I think there are a couple of things to consider around the proposed camber thinking:
1. McStrut cars have poor camber curves. SLA cars don't (both generalizations, but valid generalizations). The two differing designs do NOT need the same static camber to end up near the same place dynamically. And, keep in mind, the allowance is for either plates or bolts for strut cars, not both. Given the diameter of the typical strut opening at the top of the tower and other limitations, I don't think we'll be seeing crazy camber values (which I'm not sure I'd want on 200TW tires, anyhow).
2. If all McStrut cars used lower mount points which allowed "pivoting" the strut, ala camber bolts, plates wouldn't be on the table. But, they don't...so they are. If it wasn't for that fact, I think plates would fall right into the same unreasonable category...I know they do for me, as you're right back into the kind of "prepared" type of modification.

And, if you look forward, you just see more strut cars, set up to push (to save us from ourselves) continuing to come to market. The idea of helping the design limited, common McStrut cars is to provide more fun and attractive autocross candidates. SLA cars, blessed with favorable camber curve and factory eccentrics to allow alignment options, don't have the same issues. They're fun from the get go...and also allow more oem alignment tuning options to make them even more fun.

Michael Wood wrote:Yep, or (as was pointed out) offset control arm bushings can give gains. But, both are seen as not reasonable, it seems. In one case, you're replacing a significant component of the oem design (control arm). In the other, you are required to either hire a shop or have on hand specialized tools to do bushings. Both end up feeling pretty "prepared" and not consistent with an entry level, minimum prep class.

Replacing control arms is actually quite easy to do. Depending on the design, some can be adjusted easily. I feel that camber plates are just as "prepared" as adjustable control arms. To me, entry level and minimum prep are basically arrive, clear out the inside of the car and trunk, set tire pressures, and go!!!

Michael Wood wrote:SLA cars, blessed with favorable camber curve and factory eccentrics to allow alignment options, don't have the same issues. They're fun from the get go...and also allow more oem alignment tuning options to make them even more fun.

Not all SLA cars come with adjustable camber option from the factory. Most Hondas in the 90s didn't. Modern SLA examples include all Audi A4/S4/RS4/A5/S5/RS5, the front camber can't be adjusted in these cars.

Would allowing a bit more Spacer width on strut cars help even things out